Superfund Site Information
December, 2005
Michael Levin, Ph.D., F.A.A.A.S., a Havertown resident and activist for the conditions at the Havertown Superfund Site is asking all township residents to notify their Commissioners to contact the EPA regarding the Superfund Site and its effect on our quality of life. This is an issue that crosses township boundaries. Dr.Levin has graciously given permission to post his comments here.
|
Michael H.Levin_____________________________________
414 Mill Road, Havertown, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 19083-3740
E-mail <SUPERFUND SITE: STARTING A REMEDY IS EASIER THAN FINISHING IT
The Havertown PCP Site was listed as a contaminated Superfund Site in 1983 making it eligible for federal funds. Today, in 2005, the site is supposedly protective of human health, however, hazardous substances continue to leach from the site into nearby areas, particularly in the 4th and 3rd wards.
On November 17th, 2005, EPA presented a “Let’s talk about it” session to about 30 attendees and two legislators, Sen. Connie Williams and Rep. Greg Vitali. Two senior scientists, Drs. Mike Levin and Vito Punzi, presented their assessment of EPA’s 3rd five-year review; that assessment is one of inadequacy; a third engineer generally agrees with them.
When it’s working properly, some 35-40 gals/minute are pumped out of 4 extraction wells on the capped site; the pumps don’t work some of the time, maybe more than that. There is one monthly discharge chemically analyzed each month, too little to determine overall operation. Hazardous vapor intrusion into existing or proposed above ground structures is unknown. An abandoned sewer line was plugged, but ground contamination has not been removed nor has its source or extent been satisfactorily determined. Even though a slurry wall of clay might be injected into the soil it might not prevent further movement of contamination or other associated problems as contamination moves downhill with water from the site. Deed restrictions could be placed on affected properties if contamination is left in place and not removed. Affected sites might be tagged with restrictive signs; such identification becomes lost with time. Natural breakdown of contaminants either in the soil or at depth has not been determined. Experimental literature representing advances in remediation has not been updated in nearly two decades; neither have health effects. EPA’s working group on over 100 similar wood preserver sites is largely dysfunctional. Cap material on the site is thin and not a permanent fix. Comparison of soil water with drinking water standards, the only valid one, has not been done. EPA is readying to transfer the site to the state, even in its partially remedied condition. Further creative or innovative remedies either by EPA or the state DEP are doubtful; site remedy, once so promising, is stagnant.
At the present level of public apathy, Haverford will have a permanently contaminated site on its hands without hope of returning it to useful life. Deed restricted parties, now held at arms length by a presumptive remedy in progress, will seek legal relief. Improving the present remedy is the preferred action.
By averting its eyes from a non-functioning appointed environmental committee, Haverford is depriving its residents of beneficial and faithful services.